ETAN/West Papua Advocacy Team:

Nine
Questions for Sen. John Kerry, nominee for Secretary of State,
on Indonesia, Timor-Leste and West Papua

Human Rights and Security AssistanceBackground: Reform of the
military and police in Indonesia has come to halt as the U.S.
provides increased assistance to both. No credible effort has
been made to bring to justice those responsible for
the destruction of Timor-Leste
in 1999 or the many human rights violations that occurred
during Indonesia's 24-year-long illegal occupation. In July
2010, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced the
resumption of engagement
with Indonesia's notorious Kopassus special forces. The
U.S.-funded and trained police
Detachment 88 is
regularly accused of human rights violations. The national
government has
done little to protect freedom of religion. Indonesian
security forces often standby or actively assist in violations
of religious freedom. Engaging with Indonesia's military and
police has not worked to improve human rights or accountability.

Question: To what extent has U.S. training and
other assistance to the Indonesian security forces,
especially the Kopassus Special Forces and the "anti-terror"
Detachment 88 abetted those forces' violations of human
rights? What is the current relationship between the U.S.
Administration and such forces as the Indonesian Special
Forces and Detachment 88? Have the numerous well-founded
allegations of human rights abuse and corruption targeting
these institutions been thoroughly examined by the U.S.
Administration? What has been the result of those
examinations? Do you agree that the U.S. should stop
training and selling weapons to the Indonesian military and
police?

Background: Recent administrations have ended restrictions
on military assistance to Indonesia. They argued that U.S.
engagement encourages reform and progress on human rights. The
opposite is true. Historically, reform in Indonesia has
coincided with U.S. restrictions on security assistance. In
recent years, the U.S. has
re-engaged with Indonesia's notorious Kopassus special
forces and is actively
considering the sale of Apache attack helicopters which can
be used for internal repression, including attacks on civilians
in West Papua.

Question: What systems are in place to ensure
that U.S.-provided weaponry and associated equipment have
not been and will not be employed to violate human rights?
Specifically, what guarantees are in place to ensure the
Apache attack helicopters will not be employed to support
Indonesian security force "sweep" operations in West Papua,
where villagers have long suffered indiscriminate security
force attacks? What restrictions should be placed on U.S.
security assistance to Indonesia as a way to encourage
reform, accountability for past human rights crimes, and
ongoing respect for human rights?

Indonesia as Strategic Partner

Recent administrations have ended restrictions on military assistance to
Indonesia, arguing that U.S. engagement encourages reform and progress on
human rights. The opposite is true. Historically, reform in Indonesia has
coincided with U.S. restrictions on security assistance.

Background: This administration has identified
Indonesia as a "strategic partner" reflecting its growing
regional economic, political and security importance. Despite
Indonesia's impressive democratic progress, Indonesian security
forces continue to be a target of strong criticism as a regular
violator of human rights and as a corrupt institution that
remains largely unaccountable to civilian rule. The State
Department annual human rights reports have documented the broad
unaccountability of the security forces under Indonesia's
judicial system. The limited efforts to prosecute
crimes against humanity during
the Suharto dictatorships and its immediate aftermath have
ended in failure. These security forces, notably, continue to
conduct "sweep operations" in rural West Papua which have forced
thousands of villagers to flee, destroyed homes, crops and
churches, and led to the death of many. Security forces,
including police, have repressed freedom of speech, harassing
peaceful dissenters and employing draconian Suharto-era laws to
label peaceful protesters as "treasonous." Similar repression
has also been employed in the Moluccan islands.

Question: Given the strong and growing ties
between the U.S. and Indonesian security forces, what should
the U.S. do to influence these forces to end their
violations of human rights and corruption and to subordinate
themselves to civilian control?

Background: During more than two decades of illegal
occupation of Timor-Leste, Indonesian security forces
committed serious crimes with
impunity, taking as many as 184,000 Timorese lives and
torturing, raping and displacing countless others. In 1999,
after the East Timorese voted for independence, the
Indonesian military and its militia proxies ransacked
Timor-Leste. The magnitude of this destruction is clearly
documented. Last year during a visit to Timor-Leste, UN
Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon said: "All the perpetrators for the crimes
against humanity and war crimes must be brought to justice."
Timor-Leste's Commission on Truth, Reception and Reconciliation
recommended an international tribunal should other efforts
at justice fail. The government of Indonesia has proved
unwilling to hold its security forces accountable.

Question: Do you support going to the UN
Security Council to create an international tribunal for
East Timor to make certain justice is served? What other
steps should the U.S. take to support justice for these
serious crimes, war crimes and crimes against humanity
committed in East Timor since Indonesia invaded in 1975?

Timor-Leste's Truth CommissionBackground:
The U.S. government has yet to respond to the report of
Timor-Leste's Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation
(CAVR), although the president of Timor-Leste officially
delivered a copy in 2003. Its
recommendations include calls for an international tribunal,
reparations from countries that supported the occupation, and
restrictions on foreign assistance to the Indonesian military
until it shows that it is a rights-respecting institution.

The U.S. government has yet to respond to the report of Timor-Leste's
Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR)...
Its recommendations include calls for
an international tribunal.

Question: A number of Timor-Leste's Commission
for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation recommendations are
directed at the U.S. What do you think of the work of the
CAVR and its recommendations about justice? Should the U.S.
government issue a formal response to the CAVR report?

Background: Timor-Leste has been independent for 10
years and
remains heavily dependent on petroleum revenue. Following
centuries of exploitation and occupation by external powers, its
people are among the most impoverished in Asia. Current U.S.
assistance to Timor-Leste is biased toward creating an
unregulated economy and is increasingly emphasizing military
aid. Former President Jose
Ramos-Horta has argued that aid is better spent on the
ground for rural development initiatives, rather than "to cover
endless study missions, extremely generous consultant fees,
repetitive reports and recommendations stating the obvious."

Question: Would you support assistance to
Timor-Leste that is focused on improving the lot of the
poorest? What should be done to strengthen non-oil sectors
of its economy? Do you plan to re-evaluate the assistance
the U.S. provides to Timor-Leste to make it more useful and
effective? What should be the top priority of U.S.
development assistance? Do you think current policy supports
that emphasis? What would you change?

West Papua

Background:
The Indonesian government maintains a heavy police and military
presence in West Papua. The security forces regularly intimidate
and threaten human rights activists, church leaders and members
of indigenous communities who support greater autonomy or
independence from Indonesia through peaceful means. Restrictions
on international journalists, human rights advocates and
diplomats hinder independent monitoring. Abuses committed in
West Papua include the
imprisonment of peaceful activists who raise the "Morning
Star" flag, regarded as a symbol of Papuan identity and
independence. Indonesian security forces opened fire on the
peaceful Third Papuan National
Congress in October 2011, killing at least three people.
This interference with the right to peacefully assemble and
express one's political views is a clear violation of
international human rights. Last September, Secretary Clinton
on her visit to Indonesia "deplore[d] violence of any sort
in Papua" and called for "dialogue between Papuan
representatives in the Indonesian Government" aimed at
"resolving conflict peacefully, [and] improving governance and
development."

Question: Does U.S. security assistance to
Indonesia help or hinder an end to violence in West Papua?
How can the U.S. best assist a peaceful resolution of the
conflict there? Would you support suspension of security
assistance to Indonesia until these human rights violations
cease in West Papua?

The U.S. government has yet to respond to the report of Timor-Leste's
Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR)...
Its recommendations include calls for
an international tribunal.

West Papua Special AutonomyBackground:
Since passage of legislation in 2001, the Indonesian government
has pledged to institute "special autonomy" within West Papua.
The approach, as conceived, was to grant greater autonomy to
West Papua and to end decades of neglect that has led to
stagnation of development and denial of basic services. For
decades, West Papua has ranked at the bottom of for Indonesian
provinces on indices measuring health, education and employment
opportunities. The people of West Papua, through their elected
and civil society leaders and through mass demonstrations, have
declared "special autonomy"
a failure.
Nevertheless, the U.S. government continues to support this
failed approach.

Question: Under your leadership, will the
Department of State review "special autonomy" in the
provinces of Papua and West Papua, and will you press the
Indonesian government to revamp its failed approach to West
Papua?

Access to West PapuaBackground: The Government
of Indonesia has long sought to prevent the international
community from witnessing the repression of the Papuan people.
It has
forced the closure of the offices of the International
Committee of the Red Cross and Peace Brigades International,
blocked missions by Amnesty International and other
international human right organizations, and regularly blocked
or impeded travel to or within West Papua by diplomats,
international journalists, researchers and others.
A joint report by the Faith-Based Network on West Papua,
Franciscans International, Papua Land of Peace and the Asian
Human Rights Commission concluded that the Indonesian government
is tightening restrictions on journalists and non-governmental
organizations which seek to cover developments in West Papua.
The U.S. Congress and several
U.S. administrations have repeatedly called for an end to
restrictions on travel to West Papua.

Question: What specific steps would the State
Department, under your leadership, take to end restrictions
on access to West Papua by journalists, humanitarian
organizations and others?